From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Guldbeck v. Chase Home Finance, LLC

United States District Court, N.D. California
Apr 17, 2010
No C 09-5733 VRW (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2010)

Opinion

No C 09-5733 VRW.

April 17, 2010


ORDER


On March 31, 2010, the court ordered the parties to show cause why the action should not be remanded to San Mateo County superior court, as the amended complaint contains no federal claims. Doc #32. The deadline to respond to the court's order has passed, and no party has objected to the proposed remand. See Doc ##33, 36.

Because all federal claims have been dismissed, remand is appropriate. 28 USC § 1367(c)(3); see also Wren v Sletten Construction Co, 654 F2d 529, 536 (9th Cir 1981) ("When the state issues apparently predominate and all federal claims are dismissed before trial, the proper exercise of discretion requires dismissal of the state claims."). Accordingly, the action is hereby REMANDED to San Mateo County superior court. The clerk is directed to terminate all motions and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Guldbeck v. Chase Home Finance, LLC

United States District Court, N.D. California
Apr 17, 2010
No C 09-5733 VRW (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2010)
Case details for

Guldbeck v. Chase Home Finance, LLC

Case Details

Full title:ALEX GULDBECK and KIMBERLY A ANDERSON, Plaintiffs, v. CHASE HOME FINANCE…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. California

Date published: Apr 17, 2010

Citations

No C 09-5733 VRW (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2010)